PDF

A look at addiction and substance abuse in the workplace, with focus areas on the recent legalization of marijuana, and the duty to accommodate principles. 

Looks at the perspective of persons with disabilities to identify the factors that influence their employee duty of disclosure; concerns that are considered when deciding to disclose, such as the unfair negative stigma often received, isolation or lowered expectations; highlighting barriers in the workplace that should be removed in order to address and circumvent such disclosure considerations. 

Substantive approach to equality for disabled persons; using the perspective of disability rights activists and their allies; looks at SCC cases and interpretation of Charter in addressing disability issues.

Contract law principles; frustration when no party to contract is at fault but the terms can no longer be fulfilled; discusses the cases in which an employee is absent and/or cannot work because of disability or illness lasting a long or unknowable amount of time; provides employers and employees with information on what tribunals have said on such matters. 

The article addresses the tension created by the Supreme Courts's S.15 tests of adverse effects discrimination and there potential to effect the judicial definition of prima facia discrimination under human rights codes. It further discusses how this was resolved with a restatement of the test in the Moore case.

Conference presentation paper as part of the Workplace Rights & Accommodations Forum 2016, discussing the collaborative process involved in the duty to accommodate, with a focus on the required nature and extent of information disclosure. 

The article distinguishes between how discrimination is determined under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights. An extensive discussion of the distinctions between prima facia discrimination under the codes and discrimination in a substantive sense under the Charter and the different thresholds of proof required by the claimant under each statue. Defines systemic discrimination under human rights codes.

A discussion of damages at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. A policy argument that current conventional damages are too low to effectively accomplish the Codes objectives. A good explanation of how damages are determined. Contrasts the damages consequences of perusing a claim iat the Tribunal vs. Court.

The author criticises the SCC finding that the manner the employee was terminated, in which the employer chose to stop accommodating the employee’s disability, did not constitute discrimination, despite the lower courts finding of bad faith. The SCC affirms that a breach of the human rights code can not constitute an independent actionable cause of action. The Court restricts the use of bad faith damages in a wrongful dismissal cases.

Discusses the difficulty in crafting a systemic remedy that is enforceable and the Supreme Court of Canada’s retreat from the issuance of systemic remedies even in a  case like Moore where there appeared to be  systemic discrimination.